If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Non sequitur. If your point is that individual rights should be protected from majority rule, then why not recognize that the 'free exercise of religion' is one of the first enumerated. Nowhere in the constitution are you guaranteed the right to be free from personal offense, but the free exercise of religion is very clearly and unambiguously stated in first amendment. That particular individual right is protected from interference by the majority, and specifically from Congress.

And if you start on about the 'wall of separation between church and state', I'll know you've completely misunderstood the concept of 'individual rights'. The wall is there to protect religion from government, not the other way around.

Religion does't offend me and, again, the question to be asked is whether the founders intended this nation to be free. If no, then you are 100% correct...

The question to be asked is whether the founders intended this country to be free. If that is the case then how can one be free when the religion of one cab be imposed over another? And if the religion of one cannot be imposed another isn't the definition of secularism what is it?

We are free (although that could be another thread in and of itself) and religion isn't imposed on you or anyone else in the sense that you have to tithe or attend church or kneel down five times a day.

I hear secularism and I think without God or religion. God is on our money, our pledge, we swear to him before testifying or taking office, etc. The country doesn't have an officially recognized religion but to say we are secular in the meaning of the word is not accurate.

??? Yes, the founders intended this nation to be free. That's obvious.

There's no 'if' about my being correct. Go read the 1st Amendment yourself. It's in English and all.

It should be obvious that they intended a large part of that freedom to include, rather than exclude the practice of religion.

So if you are free to turn into law your beliefs, thereby imposing your beliefs over me, and government cannot stop you how is it I am free? Sounds like you are free and I am not. Is that the founders intent?

So if you are free to turn into law your beliefs, thereby imposing your beliefs over me, and government cannot stop you how is it I am free? Sounds like you are free and I am not. Is that the founders intent?

Again, read the 1st, clause by clause.

It explicitly confers an individual freedom, 'the free exercise thereof'. The entire remainder of the 1st Amendment is a set of restrictions upon government 'the Congress', prohibiting the the abridgement of free exercise, speech, assembly, etc.

Some interpret this as permission for other levels of government to have an official state religion (Virginia kept theirs until a few years later). This is contra indicated by the 14th, imposing the same limitations on state governments, that the Constitution imposes on the Federal government.

The first prohibits establishment of a state religion, but offers no opinion on individual sources of laws. The majority is free to turn its beliefs, religious or otherwise, into constructs of law, until that infringes on the right of individual free exercise.

None of the 'impose your beliefs' straw man bogeyman is relevant in the context of the OP, however.

In the OP, it is the student's free exercise and free speech that has been abridged by the 'government' (represented by the school), at the behest of a single hypersensitive individual, whose freedom to choose a secular life was no way abridged by a little girl reading a poem with the word 'God' in it.

We are free (although that could be another thread in and of itself) and religion isn't imposed on you or anyone else in the sense that you have to tithe or attend church or kneel down five times a day.

I hear secularism and I think without God or religion. God is on our money, our pledge, we swear to him before testifying or taking office, etc. The country doesn't have an officially recognized religion but to say we are secular in the meaning of the word is not accurate.

God was placed on our money and pledge to differentiate us from the Communists not because of the founding philosophy and I am sorry but you do not seem to understand the meaning of 'secular.' Secularism in government simply means that the religious beliefs of one cannot be legislated over another. Isreal is a Jewish theoracy that practices and inforces secularism. Religion and secularism can and do coexist. I would also like to add that this case is nonsence...the mention of god in a childs poem, a child that lacks the reason to fully understand god, should not be censured and that the school knuckled under is shameful. That that same child, reguardless of understanding, would proselytize would be totally different...

It explicitly confers an individual freedom, 'the free exercise thereof'. The entire remainder of the 1st Amendment is a set of restrictions upon government 'the Congress', prohibiting the the abridgement of free exercise, speech, assembly, etc.

Some interpret this as permission for other levels of government to have an official state religion (Virginia kept theirs until a few years later). This is contra indicated by the 14th, imposing the same limitations on state governments, that the Constitution imposes on the Federal government.

The first prohibits establishment of a state religion, but offers no opinion on individual sources of laws. The majority is free to turn its beliefs, religious or otherwise, into constructs of law, until that infringes on the right of individual free exercise.

None of the 'impose your beliefs' straw man bogeyman is relevant in the context of the OP, however.

In the OP, it is the student's free exercise and free speech that has been abridged by the 'government' (represented by the school), at the behest of a single hypersensitive individual, whose freedom to choose a secular life was no way abridged by a little girl reading a poem with the word 'God' in it.

Whose beliefs are being imposed on whom?

You didn't answer my question: how can we be a free nation if the religious beliefs of one can be legislated over another, irrespective of belief?

You didn't answer my question: how can we be a free nation if the religious beliefs of one can be legislated over another, irrespective of belief?

You are proceeding from a completely false premise. The religious beliefs of one individual cannot be legislated over another.
That's impossible in a democratic republic.

The majority of the electorate is prevented from imposing, via their elected representatives, a state-sanctioned religion, period.
That's prohibited by the First Amendment.

The majority of the electorate is prevented from passing laws interfering in the free exercise of religion, period.
That's prohibited by the First Amendment.

An electorate is free to be guided by their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the drafting of legislation, up to the point where those laws either establish a state religion, or prevent free exercise of religion.

Allowing for individual expression of religious belief, in no way endangers the freedom of individuals to be free from religion.

Unless, of course, those individuals' secularist sensibilities are so fragile that the occasional public utterance of the word 'God' is enough to shatter all rational thought, transforming the hapless agnostic or atheist into a a mindless religo-zombie, helpless to resist the siren song of religious belief without succor and support from a government willing to violate the Constitution by silencing all religious expression.